If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

And if it's no greater obligation than anybody has anyways, why would it make it GPL incompatible?

Because however vague and meaningless it is, it's still an extra condition restrict the rights of others to use the code, and that's incompatible with the GPL. It doesn't matter what that condition is or how ineffectual it is - that it exists at all is a problem.

Of course, personally I'd suggest that the use of PHP is already in violation of the "don't be evil" clause...

Comment

I actually am somewhat sympathetic in some ways. If I wrote some code and wanted it to be open-source, I wouldn't necessarily be thrilled if it was being used to cause harm.

Lol, do you think that when the us goes into war against afghanisthan, iraq, etc... they consider themselves EVIL ? If they were to put some php-json code in their drones (poor drones), they would be the first to say : "look, not only we don't use your software for evil, but we use it AGAINST evil, for thy Greater Goode!"

Comment

Lol, do you think that when the us goes into war against afghanisthan, iraq, etc... they consider themselves EVIL ? If they were to put some php-json code in their drones (poor drones), they would be the first to say : "look, not only we don't use your software for evil, but we use it AGAINST evil, for thy Greater Goode!"

Well, the particular clause here is obviously non-binding. I'm just saying that if I released code, while I'm sympathetic to the open source concept, maybe not as much to the "free" part. So I wouldn't be completely opposed to having some kind of barriers in my license.

edit: Put another way, what does Stallman think about the fact that a lot of GNU code is being using to restrict liberties around the world?

Comment

Well, the particular clause here is obviously non-binding. I'm just saying that if I released code, while I'm sympathetic to the open source concept, maybe not as much to the "free" part. So I wouldn't be completely opposed to having some kind of barriers in my license.

edit: Put another way, what does Stallman think about the fact that a lot of GNU code is being using to restrict liberties around the world?

Just my personal opinion here....

I really hate the term "Free Software"..... BSD can have their free software. GPL isnt free. The copyleft explicitly makes it not free. Permanently OSS yes, but not free.

Comment

It's not a problem with people being license purists - it's that the GPL itself has such strong restrictions about co-existence with other licenses. Trivial as this extra clause is, it *is* an extra condition being imposed, and that *is* contrary to the GPL. It's silly, but when you're dealing with legal issues, nobody wants to take chances on matters of interpretation.

Really, I'm surprised they haven't just solved it by getting upstream to remove the offending condition. "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil" is a fine concept, but it's just stupid putting something so subjective into a legal document... it's not something that can possibly be enforced in court...

It doesn't matter if that particular clause can't hold up in court. It's like the old "sundown" laws in rural America, where it's illegal to be non white after dusk. If a cop arrested you for being black at night the cop would be arrested for being a racist moron.

It's not a problem with people being license purists - it's that the GPL itself has such strong restrictions about co-existence with other licenses. Trivial as this extra clause is, it *is* an extra condition being imposed, and that *is* contrary to the GPL. It's silly, but when you're dealing with legal issues, nobody wants to take chances on matters of interpretation.

Really, I'm surprised they haven't just solved it by getting upstream to remove the offending condition. "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil" is a fine concept, but it's just stupid putting something so subjective into a legal document... it's not something that can possibly be enforced in court...

It doesn't matter if that particular clause can't hold up in court. It's like the old "sundown" laws that where never repealed in rural America, where it's illegal to be non white after dusk. If a cop arrested you for being black at night the cop would be arrested for being a racist moron.

Those laws are still on the books in many places, theres a village in the next county over from mine that still rings the bells at dusk that still has the law but hasn't enforced it since the Civil Rights Act went into effect.

Comment

It doesn't matter if that particular clause can't hold up in court. It's like the old "sundown" laws in rural America, where it's illegal to be non white after dusk. If a cop arrested you for being black at night the cop would be arrested for being a racist moron.

What are you talking about?

I'm not blind to racism in america, it still exists of course, but it isnt nearly the problem today it used to be. There are a lot of other places in the world where racism is the law.

Comment

I don't think that matters. The clause might be ineffectual, but compatibility with the GPL requires it to not exist. It's a stupid situation, but I'm not as confident as you are that a court would rule that an unenforceable clause didn't count as placing additional restrictions on the use of the code.

Comment

The license is stupid, good and evil are subjective concepts, and also because it's kind of like writing on a gun "this weapon may not be used in bank robberies" - the lawful people wouldn't do bank robberies in the first place, and the criminal people don't really care what's written on the gun.

Comment

The license is stupid, good and evil are subjective concepts, and also because it's kind of like writing on a gun "this weapon may not be used in bank robberies" - the lawful people wouldn't do bank robberies in the first place, and the criminal people don't really care what's written on the gun.

I don't know how exactly to interpret it. The law makes robbing banks illegal, so whether you use a gun or software to do so is irrelevant. Either way it's illegal.